Fertigation Strategies to Alleviate Fertilizer Contamination Generated by Tomato Crops under Plastic Greenhouses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is generally well written and presents important results regarding fertilization strategies to protect water quality. There are some minor changes I am suggesting in detailed comments below.
Detailed Comments
Page 1, Line 26: The GPS coordinates need correction. There should be a space after ‘N’. Also, there should be an E or W after 02°23′.
Page 1, Lines 36-37: Correct spelling of ‘required’ in ‘they are required to develop’.
Page 2, Line 70-71: Change ‘N extraction by plant increase because avoid the uptake competence NO3-/Cl- ‘ to ‘N extraction by plants increases because of avoidance of NO3-/Cl- competition for uptake’.
Page 2, Lines 90-91: What does ‘on Orchid’ mean in this sentence describing the soil? Please clarify.
Page 3, Lines 98-99: My interpretation of the NSNH4+ treatment is that the total N applied in this treatment is the same as the conventional fertigation treatment. Is this correct? In any case, please state this clearly in terms of the total N applied in this treatment.
Page 3, Line 128: Change ‘being samples’ to ‘with samples’.
Page 3, Line 136: Change ‘was designed with’ to ‘utilized’.
Page 4, Line 139: Change ‘was considered’ to ‘were considered’.
Page 4, Line 162: Insert (Table 3) at the end of the first sentence of this paragraph. Throughout the manuscript, reference the table or figure discussed the first time it is mentioned in the paragraph.
Page 5, Line 174: Insert (Table 4) at the end of the first sentence of the paragraph.
Page 5, Line 177: Change ‘P decreased’ to ‘PUE decreased’.
Page 5, Line 184: Change ‘lixiviation’ to ‘leaching’. Make this change whenever this word is used. When ‘lixiviated’ is used, change it to ‘leached’.
Page 7, Line 254: Change ‘do not found’ to ‘did not find’.
Page 7, Line 256: Change ‘titrate able acidity’ to ‘titratable acidity’.
Page 7, Line 260: Change ‘content SSC’ to ‘SSC content’.
Page 7, Lines 268-270: If the study by Al-Khader found that WUE increased with increasing N levels this is different than the current study determined. So, the second sentence should be changed to ‘results disagreed with those obtained by Al-Khader’.
Page 7, Lines 282-283: Change sentence to ‘Nevertheless, the results obtained by Cheng et al. [48] in tomato plants cultivated in soil must be considered’.
Page 8, Line 291: Change ‘Contrariety’ to ‘Contrary’.
Page 8, Line 310: Insert a space after ‘NO3- ‘.
Page 8, Line 326: Change ‘into’ to ‘in’.
Page 8, Line 331: Change ‘are relatively difficult to leached’ to ‘is relatively difficult to leach’.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Subject: Resubmission of a revised manuscript
We would like to thank you for considering our manuscript for publication. We appreciate the valuable reviewers’ comments for improving it. The manuscript “Fertigation Strategies to Alleviate Fertilizers Contamination Generated by Tomato Crops under Plastic Greenhouse” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-1115965) has been revised according to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. The details of the revision are given below. The changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue colour (Reviewer 1) and brown colour (Reviewer 2). Moreover, the English language has been thoroughly checked and edited.
Best regards,
Silvia Jiménez Becker
Response to reviewer 1
Page 1, Line 26: The GPS coordinates need correction. There should be a space after ‘N’. Also, there should be an E or W after 02°23′. I have corrected.
Page 1, Lines 36-37: Correct spelling of ‘required’ in ‘they are required to develop’. I have corrected.
Page 2, Line 70-71: Change ‘N extraction by plant increase because avoid the uptake competence NO3-/Cl- ‘ to ‘N extraction by plants increases because of avoidance of NO3-/Cl- competition for uptake’. I have corrected.
Page 2, Lines 90-91: What does ‘on Orchid’ mean in this sentence describing the soil? Please clarify. I have delated.
Page 3, Lines 98-99: My interpretation of the NSNH4+ treatment is that the total N applied in this treatment is the same as the conventional fertigation treatment. Is this correct? In any case, please state this clearly in terms of the total N applied in this treatment. I have corrected.
Page 3, Line 128: Change ‘being samples’ to ‘with samples’. I have corrected.
Page 3, Line 136: Change ‘was designed with’ to ‘utilized’. I have corrected.
Page 4, Line 139: Change ‘was considered’ to ‘were considered’. I have corrected.
Page 4, Line 162: Insert (Table 3) at the end of the first sentence of this paragraph. Throughout the manuscript, reference the table or figure discussed the first time it is mentioned in the paragraph. I have corrected.
Page 5, Line 174: Insert (Table 4) at the end of the first sentence of the paragraph. I have corrected.
Page 5, Line 177: Change ‘P decreased’ to ‘PUE decreased’. I have corrected.
Page 5, Line 184: Change ‘lixiviation’ to ‘leaching’. Make this change whenever this word is used. When ‘lixiviated’ is used, change it to ‘leached’. I have corrected.
Page 7, Line 254: Change ‘do not found’ to ‘did not find’. I have corrected.
Page 7, Line 256: Change ‘titrate able acidity’ to ‘titratable acidity’. I have corrected.
Page 7, Line 260: Change ‘content SSC’ to ‘SSC content’. I have corrected.
Page 7, Lines 268-270: If the study by Al-Khader found that WUE increased with increasing N levels this is different than the current study determined. So, the second sentence should be changed to ‘results disagreed with those obtained by Al-Khader’. I have corrected.
Page 7, Lines 282-283: Change sentence to ‘Nevertheless, the results obtained by Cheng et al. [48] in tomato plants cultivated in soil must be considered’. I have corrected.
Page 8, Line 291: Change ‘Contrariety’ to ‘Contrary’. I have corrected.
Page 8, Line 310: Insert a space after ‘NO3- ‘.I have corrected.
Page 8, Line 326: Change ‘into’ to ‘in’. I have corrected.
Page 8, Line 331: Change ‘are relatively difficult to leached’ to ‘is relatively difficult to leach’. I have corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled “Fertigation Strategies to Alleviate Fertilizers Contamination 2 Generated by Tomato Crops under Plastic Greenhouse " presents the results of a study which aimed to determine the effect of different fertigation strategies, based on the reduction of the nitrogen applied on the decrease of the environmental impact caused by the traditional system. At the same time, the authors assessed the yield and the quality of the tested tomatoes. The greenhouse area of Alemria is huge, the largest in the world. Such concentration of production always has a very negative impact on the quality of the environment. Such areas require the implementation of practices that minimize negative impact. For this reason, the research undertaken by the authors is extremely important for that region. The data presented are of more than national interest.
However, there is a need to improve and/or clarify some aspects.
Lines 61-62 In my opinion, this sentence is redundant or needs to be supplemented. It is difficult to say whether leaching out at the level of 1.5 mg/L is little or much, without comparing how much is leaching out as a result of the application of nitrate fertilizers.
Table 1. I don't understand why the NS and NS NH4 contain different concentrations of H2PO4-, SO42-, especially K+ and Ca2+? According to the description, these nutrient solutions differ only in the form of nitrogen used (20% NH4).
Results section
In the description of the results and in the tables, the authors use abbreviations, e.g. HG, M, MM, SSC (line 161) while these abbreviations are nowhere explained.
Line 149 There is N65%, there should be NS65%
Table 2. Why the results of the statistical analysis were placed only at selected research treatments?
Lines 173-174 This statement is not true because there were statistically significant differences between the two objects.
Line 193 no subscripts (NO3-)
The description of figures 1b, 2b, 3b is misleading. Since the figures show a reduction in ion leaching compared to the standard fertigation (NS), then the leaching on NS should be 100%. Please check this.
Discussion
Line 313 - no superscript (ha-1)
Lines 340-341 The authors report that the greater leaching of phosphorus from the NSNH4 treatment results from greater phosphorus solubility related to the increased of acidification of the medium. Meanwhile, for years it has been reported in the literature that an increase in the acidity of the medium reduces the solubility of phosphorus compounds.
References
Authors should format their references according to the journal's requirements in the guidelines for authors.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Subject: Resubmission of a revised manuscript
We would like to thank you for considering our manuscript for publication. We appreciate the valuable reviewers’ comments for improving it. The manuscript “Fertigation Strategies to Alleviate Fertilizers Contamination Generated by Tomato Crops under Plastic Greenhouse” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-1115965) has been revised according to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. The details of the revision are given below. The changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue colour (Reviewer 1) and brown colour (Reviewer 2). Moreover, the English language has been thoroughly checked and edited.
Best regards,
Silvia Jiménez Becker
Response to reviewer 2
Lines 61-62 In my opinion, this sentence is redundant or needs to be supplemented. It is difficult to say whether leaching out at the level of 1.5 mg/L is little or much, without comparing how much is leaching out as a result of the application of nitrate fertilizers. I have included a sentence.
Table 1. I don't understand why the NS and NS NH4 contain different concentrations of H2PO4-, SO42-, especially K+ and Ca2+? According to the description, these nutrient solutions differ only in the form of nitrogen used (20% NH4). ). ). Since fertilizers are salts, to balance ions in the nutrient solution other nutrients in the nutrient solutions were changed. I have included this sentence.
Results section
In the description of the results and in the tables, the authors use abbreviations, e.g. HG, M, MM, SSC (line 161) while these abbreviations are nowhere explained. Abbreviation are explained in section production: yield and quality. “Calibration was done according to the maximum diameter of the equatorial section [23], according to the following sizing scale: unmarketable (fruit diameter less than 40 mm), MMM (40-46 mm), MM (47-56 mm), M (57-66 mmm), G (67-80 mm), and GG (over 81 mm)”. I have also included this date in table.
Line 149 There is N65%, there should be NS65%. I have corrected.
Table 2. Why the results of the statistical analysis were placed only at selected research treatments? No letters mean no differences among treatments. I have included this sentence.
Lines 173-174 This statement is not true because there were statistically significant differences between the two objects. NS and NS65% has the same letter, therefore no difference between these treatments were found.
Line 193 no subscripts (NO3-) I have corrected.
The description of figures 1b, 2b, 3b is misleading. Since the figures show a reduction in ion leaching compared to the standard fertigation (NS), then the leaching on NS should be 100%. Please check this. I have corrected.
Discussion
Line 313 - no superscript (ha-1) I have corrected.
Lines 340-341 The authors report that the greater leaching of phosphorus from the NSNH4 treatment results from greater phosphorus solubility related to the increased of acidification of the medium. Meanwhile, for years it has been reported in the literature that an increase in the acidity of the medium reduces the solubility of phosphorus compounds. I have included this reference. In strongly acidic soil, the formation of iron and aluminum phosphate minerals results in the reduced solubility of P, improving as pH approaches nearly neutral (Hopkins and Ellsworth, 2005). However, this maximum solubility and plant availability of P at pH 6.5 declines again as the pH increases into the alkaline range .
